plasticity_create_cantilever_snap_fit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the destructive, non-read-only, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine non-obvious behavior — that the editable profile is retained in the document and the recipe uses three native history steps. It does not clarify editability of the generated hook or what happens on re-run.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three front-loaded sentences with the core action first and setup detail after; dense but each clause carries geometric or behavioral information. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the frame/orientation parameters well but is silent on most dimensional parameters and the revision/target semantics, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies baseCenterMm (on the support), beamDirection/thicknessDirection (define the profile plane), and widthMm (centered across its normal), but leaves lengthMm, thicknessMm, hookLengthMm, hookHeightMm, baseOverlapMm, targetId, revision, and intent entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and highly specific resource ('create an exact cantilever snap-fit beam with an integral end hook and join it to one Solid'), which is clearly distinguishable from the many other create_* siblings such as dovetail or tongue-groove joints.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies when the tool applies (creating a snap-fit beam) and gives geometry setup context, but never states when to prefer it over alternative joint creators or any prerequisites/exclusions. Usage must be inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.